On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:49:50 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 17:45, wrote:
On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 5:25:13 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 01/01/2017 16:03, wrote:

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 3:01:10 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Nasty looking thug.

Agreed.


Apart from the silly hat why do you say this is nasty looking thug?
What metric do you use to determine a person's facial thuggishness?

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/149..._over/?ref=rss

A bully assaulted an innocent cyclist then ran to his mummy when the victim stood up to him...

...is a description of a different - and totally imaginary - incident.

No, it's a valid interpretation of the reported 'facts' from someone who was not there.
You, for example.

I would never construct such a stupid "interpretation" from such a report.

Because you are a bigot.


But you did.

The report does not support your fanciful re-imagining of reality.

In your fantasy world where cyclists can do no right.


There is no report of an assault on a cyclist, for a start. But there
*is* a report of an assault on the victim, pepetrated by a cyclist.

Where was the alleged assault on the initiator of the unnecessary confrontation?
The cyclist was just going about his lawful business.


Are you trying to live down to a New year's Resolution?

Not getting into an argument with a child using an adult keyboard would be a good one.